International Sustainable committee r - · PDF fileOF TOURISM INDICATORS FOR THE CNi:-weft- ... Co-published with the World Tourism Organization ... INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR INDICATORS

SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMEN T

OF TOURIS M

INDICATORS FOR TH E

CNi:-weft-[CIC

Report of theInternational Working Group

on Indicators of Sustainable Tourismto the environment committee

rWorth Tourism oganization

HSD

t il}\Y OY'1I t,VF

Canada

FEBRUARY 1993

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

International Working Group o nIndicators of Sustainable Tourism

Co-published with the World Tourism Organizatio nand Industry, Science and Technology Canada .ISBN 1-895536-08-1

1 . Tourist trade - Environmental aspects . 2 . Tourist trade -Economic aspects . 3 . Sustainable development . 4 . Economi cindicators . I . World Tourism Organization . Environmenta lCommittee . II . International Institute for Sustainabl eDevelopment . III . Canada . Industry, Science and Technolog yCanada . IV . Title .

G155.A1I58 1993

338.4'791

C93-098182-0

This report is printed on 'paper with a minimum of 55% recycle dcontent, including a minimum of 15% post-consumer fibre ,using vegetable-based inks .

Printed and bound in Canada.

This report is available from :

International Institute for Sustainable Developmen t161 Portage Avenue East - 6th Floo rWinnipeg, Manitoba, Canad aR3B OY4

Phone : (204) 958-7700Fax :

(204) 958-7710

I N D I C A T O R S F O R T H E S U S T A I N A B L E M A N A G E M E N T O F T O U R I S M

TABLE OF CONTENT S

Part OneEXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1

Part TwoWORKING GROUP/ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3

Part ThreeINTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR INDICATORS 5

Focus of the International Working Grou p

Indicators to Respond to the Needs of Touris m

Links Between Tourism and the Environmen t

Measuring What is Importan t

What Tourism Managers Need to Know

Part Fou rPROPOSED INDICATORS AND COMPOSITE INDICES 11

Derived Indice s

Individual Indicator s

National Leve l

Critical Area/Hot Spot s

Recommended Indicators for the Secto r

Table 1 :National Level Indicators List 15

Table 2 :Critical Areas/Hot Spots Indicators List 17

ANNEXES AND REFERENCE S

Annex 1 : The Indicator Development Process

19Table 3 :Framework for Indicator Selection 2 1

Annex 2 : Initial Proposal and Resolution from WTO 2 5

Annex 3 : Workshop Report - Winnipeg

26Table 4 :Long List of Potentially Useful Indicators 29

References 36

EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y

RECOMMENDATIONS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION S

The tourism sector requires better information to support its sustainability . Recognizingthis, the WTO Environment Committee established a task force to investigate th edevelopment of international indicators of sustainable tourism for the sector. Theseindicators will support industry decision-makers in managing the fortunes of th eindustry in the face of growing concern globally and locally about environmental quality .the indicators are designed to address the links between the tourism industry and th eenvironment, the impact of the industry on the environment, and the effects of socia land natural environmental factors on the prosperity of the industry . This initiativecontains indicators both for the industry itself and for the governments who overse etourism development and tourism activity.

The initiative to develop indicators of sustainable tourism began with a proposal fro mCanada (Annex 2) to the WTO Tourism Committee . At the April 1992 meetings i nMadrid, a Working Group was struck (see Part 2 for membership) to carry out th edevelopment process and report back to the WTO Environment Committee in the Springof 1993. This is the report of that committee, prepared and submitted by th ecommittee Chair, Dr . Edward W. Manning of Tourism Canada . The report reflects th eresults of a workshop held at the International Institute for Sustainable Development i nWinnipeg Canada, and several rounds of review and input by the Working Grou pmembers .

The working group submits this report to the WTO Environment Committe ewith the following recommendations :

n It is recommended that the WTO Environment Committee accept the list of indicator sand derived indices contained in Part 3 of this Report as the basis for testing an dformal development of international indicators for the sector .

n The Working Group recommends a three-element approach :

n composite indices [destination attractivity and destination stress ]

nnational level indicators [table 1 ]

nsite or destination specific indicators for hot spots and critical areas [table 2 ]

n It is recommended that the next step be the pilot testing of these indicators an dindices on a voluntary basis by five or more WTO member nations . The pilot testsshould occur during 1993-4, and if possible include a range of nations in size, leve lof development and tourism types .

n It is recommended that the WTO hold a workshop on the further elaboration of th eindicators, involving the representatives of nations carrying our pilot studies an drepresentatives of the working group . The focus of this workshop should be on dat asourcing, modification of specific indicator application to reflect data availability an dvalidity.

~«IlllllOMT•W1O• LTC

ORGANISATION MONDIALEDU TOURISM E

WORLD TOURISMORGANIZATIO N

ORGANIZACION MUNDIA LDEL TURISM O

BCEMNPHAA TYNCTCKA ROPrAHI13AUTAR

R E P O R T O F T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L W O R K I N G G R O U P O N

I N D I C A T O R S O F S U S T A I N A B L E T O U R I S M T O T H E

E N V I R O N M E N T C O M M I T T E E W O R L D T O U R I S M O R G A N I Z A T I O N

n It is recommended that the WTO collaborate with the OECD in the advancement o fthe derived indices, and in the development of a site-specific process to target an dreview site impacts for critical areas and hot spots .

n The results of each pilot, and the workshop results should be presented to the WT OEnvironment Committee in time for synthesis and circulation prior to the 199 4meetings .

2

WORKING GROU P

ADVISORY COMMITTE E

PART TWO


INTERNATIONAL WORKING GROU P

W.M . (Bill) Bake rWorld Meteorological Organizatio nScarborough, Ontario, Canad a

Stephan BargInternational Institute fo rSustainable Developmen tWinnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

A.M. (Sandy) GilliesInternational Institutefor Sustainable Developmen tWinnipeg, Manitoba, Canad a

Ted ManningTourism Canad aOttawa, Canada

Scott Mei sTourism CanadaOttawa, Canada

Avertano Rol eMinistry of EnvironmentGovernment of MaltaFloriana, Malt a

Jack RuitenbeekConsultant, Environmental Indicator sGabriola, British Columbia, Canada

Peter ShacklefordWorld Tourism Organizatio nMadrid, Spai n

David A. SimmonsSimmons & AssociatesSt. Michael Barbado s

Ginger Smit hU.S. Department of CommerceU .S. Travel and Tourism Administratio nWashington U .S.A .

Carolyn N . WildTourism Industry Consultan tOttawa, Canad a

Tom WoltersEcoplan Environmental Consultant sWillemstad, The Netherland s

CORRESPONDING MEMBERS

Victor MiddletonWorld Travel and Tourism Research CentreOxford Englan d

Dan Tunstal lWorld Resources InstituteWashington U .S .A .

3




4

INTRODUCTION:

THE NEED FOR INDICATOR S

PART THREE


INTRODUCTION': THE NEED FOR INDICATOR S

Businesses and governments must continually make decisions which affect the touris msector and the natural and cultural environment in which it operates . Many decision sare taken without adequate understanding of the effects of these decisions on th eenvironment, or without knowledge of the environmental factors which may aid or hinde rthe tourism sector's long-term prosperity . Tourism managers are typically faced wit hlarge quantities of data and information about social, economic and environmenta lconcerns . Much of this is in a language or format which they little understand an dinfrequently have the time to examine in depth . Lost in the incoming snowstorm o fpaper may be the key fact or trend which means success or disaster to the enterprise ,or to the region within which it operates . There are important implications in th echanges we see in the natural and cultural environment for our success .

The impact of the environment on our goals, and the effects of our actions on th eenvironment are not factors which can be ignored by decision-makers . Increasingly,we are faced with the fact of accountability and responsibility for these relationships .Therefore how are we to understand the challenge well enough to manage it effectively .Degraded environments, legislated limits, lost markets all show up in the bottom line .Located at the top of the environmental and industrial food chain, tourism is extremel ysensitive to environmental conditions and to the impacts others have on the system . Infact, the state of tourism itself may be a key indicator of system stability . Because ofthis linkage, the tourism sector needs increasingly to become a knowledgeabl eparticipant in the planning of the use of the environment, and a knowledgeablemanager of its own impacts . What do decision-makers in the tourism sector need toknow to do this effectively – to risk reduce their own future ?

The mandate of the WTO Environment Committee-is to "Assist . . .members to attain andmaintain the highest possible standards in their tourism development . . ." Recognizingthe growing concerns over the link between tourism and the environment, the WTO ha sembarked on a task to develop a set of internationally accepted indicators or measureswhich will aid in providing managers and planners of tourism development with th edigestible information they need to understand their links with and impacts on th eenvironment within which they operate . In the Spring of 1992, the EnvironmentCommittee launched an initiative to develop an agreed set of internationally use dindicators to support better decision-making by governments and the tourism industr yin support of a sustainable tourism sector .

The sequence of development is summarized in Annex 1 .

5



E N V I R O N M E N T C O M M I T T E E W O R L D T O U R I 5 M O R G A N I Z A T I O N

FOCUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING GROU P

The international working group focused on the development of a set of indicators o fsustainable tourism to aid decision-makers in understanding :

n links between the tourism industry and the natural and cultural environment ,

n effects of environmental factors on the tourism industry an d

n impacts of the tourism industry on the environment .

The indicators are designed to encompass environmental factors and sensitivities ,measures of human actions which stress the environment, measures of results o fhuman impact, and measures of the human and biological consequences of thes eimpacts . As such, they include many of the same measures of level of activit y(numbers, economic measures) which are currently in use to measure industry activity .Other indicators will be based on commonly collected environmental information ,massaged to be of maximum utility in presentation and format to decision-makers i nthe industry . At the same time, a number of derived indicators will be devised which ,using existing information sources, will provide the issue-specific information that rea ldecision-makers need to make real decisions in real places . While, for example ,measures of numbers of tourists or measures of length of accessible seashore are i nthemselves of some use, the calculation of metres of seashore per tourist [one suc hcalculation from Malta estimated less than 30 cm per tourist in peak season] may b ea far more telling management indicator.

Given the nature of the problems facing tourism managers, the selected indicators wil lneed to operate at several scales . Indicators useful to measure international-leve lflows, stresses, and impacts will be ill-suited to most regional and project-leve lplanning . Similarly, measures and procedures suitable to support effective project-leve lplanning and operations may be difficult to use more broadly or to aggregate t onational or international level indicators . Further, the question of standards needs t obe initially addressed ; many nations now collect information — can it be compared t oother nations and other sectors? Above all, indicators need to be useful tools ; thereason for their existence is that they aid understanding, and help managers to avoi drisks, or to take calculated risks with more complete knowledge of likely outcomes . Al lthese factors were considered by the working group in its deliberations .

INDICATORS TO RESPOND TO TH-E NEEDS OF . TOURIS M

Internationally, many indicators are commonly used to guide decision-making . Some ,like Gross National Product, population growth rate, literacy rate or net trade balanc eare widely used as touchstones against which to judge national or regional success .Like the canary in the mine, indicators are used to warn of areas of concern so tha taction can be taken in time. Tourism currently lacks such a canary, or finds it too lat ein the form of already dead wildlife swept up on the shore . Because of this, some haveviewed the industry as a victim, under constant pressure from external changes to th eenvironment it must use, or regulated in its access or use of sensitive environments .What information must the industry have to better take charge of its own, sustainable ,

6


future? How can it bring into its own management purview many of the risks to it ssustainability – to avoid future surprises which can be very costly to its viability ?

Developing effective indicators for sustainable tourism is particularly challenging . Theindustry is multisectoral . It involves mass movement of people . The tourism product i saffected by the actions and activities of many other sectors . The prosperity of theindustry in one part of the world may depend on economic or political circumstancesthousands of miles away. Further, Tourism is not well represented in international set sof economic indicators, and may even be missing from sectoral summaries or nationa laccounts . (e .g . Canada has no such systematic accounting for tourism in the nationa laccounts .) A set of international environmental indicators similar to the well-accepte deconomic indicators has yet to be developed . But it is increasingly clear that there is aneed for such indicators which can capture the effect of industrial development ,including tourism, on the environment, and show the changes in the natural and cultura lenvironment which will be important to the sustainability of industries like tourism .

LINKS BETWEEN TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMEN T

Tourism is both a major contributor to global, national, regional and local economie sand a contributor to human stress on the environment . Tourism is also sensitive to th equalities of the natural and human environment . Loss of the attributes which make asite or region attractive to tourists can spell economic disaster to the industry an dthose who depend upon it . The emerging area of ecotourism targets sensitiv eecological areas and cultural resources – the areas most sensitive to its impacts .Tourism is also the source of demand for significant amounts of energy . It consume smany goods and services, some of which are produced only to serve tourist demands .By their numbers and activities, tourists affect the ecology and culture of the areas the yvisit .

The long term viability of the industry is dependent on maintenance of a country' snatural, cultural and historical attractions . Yet some aspects of the industry ma ydegrade the very features which support its existence . Because of these linkages, thetourist industry cannot ignore environmental issues in its management and has muc hto offer and to gain from being a leader in sustainable development . The industry alsohas a key role in generating an informed world citizenry and in sensitizing individuals t othe benefits of a clean environment .

Without an effective means of understanding the limits and opportunities afforded bythe environment, and lacking a way to measure the impact of its actions, the touris mindustry risks its own future stability. A set of indicators will help the planners an dmanagers of tourism anticipate and prevent problems . Indicators are an investment inreducing the risk of inadvertent damage to the industry and to its own resource base .Indicators can also help in understanding the effects of management efforts, an dprovide a framework for obtaining objective supporting information to allow the industr yto take credit for its successes .

7


I N D I C A T O R S O F

S U S T A I N A B L E T O U R I S M

T O T H E


MEASURING WHAT IS IMPORTAN T

Indicators are measures of important factors . . . those things which a decision-make rneeds to know to reduce the risk of unknowingly taking poor decisions . All information

or data sets are potential indicators . Selecting the right indicators reduces the wid erange of potential information to a smaller set of useable and meaningful measures o fthose factors important to the decision-maker .

Which indicators are important depends on the goals chosen, and their relativepriorities . If the objective is to preserve natural environments, key indicators may b ethose which measure areas protected, or losses of critical attributes which are th efocus of protection (species, ecosystems) . If the objective is to reduce risk o fdegrading environments used by humans (beaches, built attractions), the mos timportant indicators may be levels of use, extent of impact on the biological or cultura lvalues critical to continued use, or market trends showing changes in interest i n

continuing to frequent the area . To address the broad area of tourism sustainability,these and many other types of indicators are likely to be useful to help decisio nmakers understand the links between their actions and the continuing capability of th eenvironment to sustain them .

Many kinds of indicators are now in use to support decision-making . Much has bee nwritten on the theoretical foundation for indicators of sustainability (e .g . Daly and

Cobb, Victor, et . al . 1991) . Most of these focus directly on biophysical measures ofenvironmental health, or on measuring the stresses placed on particula renvironments .

WHAT TOURISM SECTOR MANAGERS NEED TO' KNO W

While these theoretical foundations are valuable, for practical application it i sessential to begin at the decision-maker and ask the question : what is it he or sheneeds to know to make better decisions? In this paper, an initial step has been take nto define and classify indicators based on their function in supporting the types o fdecisions that governments and industry decision-makers encounter in their plannin gand management of tourism, nationally and more locally . The general types (based on

decision-maker need to know) include :

n Warning indicators :These sensitize decision-makers to potential areas of concern and to the need to

act to anticipate and prevent problems . Example of commonly used warnin gindicators include the measurement of cholesterol levels as an indicator of futur erisk to health, or the monitoring of investment in productive plant as a leadin geconomic indicator to attempt to predict future economic outlooks . The canar yreferred to above serves just such a purpose for miners, indicating risk before it i stoo late to respond . What are the key early warning signs of risk to the prosperit yand sustainability of the tourism industry?

8


n Measures of pressures or stresses :These measure key external factors of concern, or trends which must considered i nany management response . Examples are : population growth, changing expectation sor demands, increased pressures on shared resources . How do changes in thes estresses or externalities relate in reality to the fortunes of the industry and it scomponent parts?

n Measures of the state of the natural resource base (product )and measures of levels of its use :These allow managers to understand what has changed regarding the resourceswhich they manage or influence, and to discern how they stand relative to others, tolast year, or to established standards . Examples are: current levels of pollutants ,current use levels of facilities, destinations .

® Measures of impacts/consequences :These allow decision-makers to include known effects or impacts in their busines splans, and to target the actions of others which they may wish to influence . Examplesare: days of beach closures due to pollution, loss of animal populations in impacte dareas . Two sets of measures are :

n Biological and physical impact

n Cultural and economic impact(some of which may be a result of the physical impact . )

These imply knowledge of specific cause/effect relationships .

IN Measures of management effort/action :These give decision-makers information on the level of action being carried out b ygovernments and industry in response to particular situations . Examples are : level sof pollution regulation, amount spent to control waste, areas protected, existence o fsustainable tourism plans . They respond to questions such as "are we doin genough? "

n Measures of management impact :These permit decision-makers to understand the effect of responses, to adjust thei rapproaches and instruments to obtain the desired result, and to allow credit to betaken for successes. Examples include measures showing changed levels of wast eproduction or reductions in measured levels of degradation (e .g . the same onesmeasured in Measures of impacts/consequences and Measures of managementeffort/action above) which can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of ou rinterventions to try to improve sustainability .

The indicators needed to help the tourism industry to define and take a sustainabl epath are varied . They include ecological, cultural and economic measures . But many o fthe key indicators rely on information which is commonly required by different sectorsand much can be built from existing information sources . While each of the six typeslisted above serve different management needs, there is much commonality. The sam eindicators useful to measure impacts, for example, may serve to measure th eeffectiveness of management actions to address the impacts . For example, positivechange in an indicator such as days of beach closures may reflect the results of effort s

9




to reduce pollutant loadings . Negative change in the same indicator may reflect th eimpact of increased development and use, either by the tourism sector, or by others .The working group has considered the utility of each of the proposed indicators i nterms of these six needs. Will the information be at the right scale to support bette rdecisions. What other indicators are needed to clarify what the changes in a particula rindicator may really mean ?

In Annex C, the process of identification of an initial long list of indicators, and th emeans by which this list was analyzed and evaluated to result in the recommende dapproach to indicators is documented . The challenge has been to identify indicatorswhich provide the range of information required, and which are practical for mos tnations and/or regions to provide . All indicators tend to be a compromise between adesire for accuracy and the practicality of obtaining timely and useful information . Theobjective has therefore been to propose a practical set of indicators as part of an doverall framework which will allow tourism sector decision-makers to risk reduce thei rdecisions with regard to the linkages between tourism and the environment .

It is also important that the industry remain closely in contact with the development o findicators in other related sectors – particularly e .g . forestry, transportation, water ,etc . Access to the indicators development work in other sectors can provide context fo rthe tourism-specific information, act as a source of supporting knowledge on the milie uwithin which tourism operates, and serve as a cross-check or validation for commo nmeasures. In particular, work by international organizations such as the OECD an dUNEP should be monitored to reinforce the environmental information available t otourism sector decision-makers .

10

PROPOSED INDICATORS

COMPOSITE INDICES

PART FOUR


PROPOSED INDICATORS AND COMPOSITE INDICE S

The working group has produced the following recommended set of indicators an dderived indices for the World Tourism Organization . If the WTO accepts thi srecommended set, the next stage will be the more detailed elaboration of each, an dpilot testing in the field . This next step will be a prerequisite to test their utility i ndifferent circumstances . If this list is accepted by the WTO, the next step is likely to b ethe pilot testing of these in selected nations, leading to adaptation as required and fina lacceptance for international use . Both individual indicators and derived composit eindices are recommended because of their different capabilities to serve the needs o fdecision-makers .

A . DERIVED INDICE S

Certain derived indices may be of great use, particularly in the development of ke yindicators for hot spots and smaller regions, localities . These are different than specifi cindicators, but do help in identifying problems and areas needing attention . Ideally ,such indices are a form of early warning which would cause decision-makers to look toother indicators and more specific information regarding the specific sites . Theseindices will need to be set up as agreed consensus indices, as they are necessaril ysubjective . The content and weighting (if any) will require agreement .

The Working Group has identified the utility of derived indices : 1 . an index o fdestination attractivity, and 2 . and index of levels of stress .

n 1. A destination attractivity inde xBased on such measures as landscape variety, cultural variety, uniqueness, level o fmaintenance, level of unrest/hostility/security, ease of access, etc . Such an indexcould be derived from, for example the criteria used to identify UNESCO sites, wit hsome aggregate weighted index produced . This would be meaningful as it could ris eor fall relative to local conditions (e .g . Shining Path depredations would have anegative impact on the index for Cuzco or Machu Picchu, restoration work, acces sand political stability a positive impact on Angkor Wat) . An alternative would be areport card approach :

e .g . .

Michelin type

A (baseline overall attractivity )natural environment

Bcultural environment Cpublic security

Aaccessibility

Coverall rating

B- etc .

If an overall numeric index of attractivity is used, it would be initially based on a sit eassessment involving all of these . One concern is whether a numerical index migh tbe misleading if it was used to rank sites (e .g . "Niagara Falls is a 78 and Xochimilc ois just a 73 therefore Niagara must be better" .) Attention will need to be given t opotential use of these indices if developed . One possible approach would be toassign each destination a baseline index of 100 in year 1 ; – this would then serve asa relative index for the site, showing improvement or degradation over time .




[this approach would eliminate the possibility of comparisons with other sites – an dmay therefore be a limiting factor for the utility of such indices] . To some exten tthese indices will be built over time, at least in part based on the more specifi c

indicators . The recommended configuration of composite indices is a starting poin t– the formalization of these, with agreed contents and weighting will be neede dbefore they can be put into more general use . A key task for the next step i ndevelopment of support mechanisms for decision-makers will be the furthe relaboration of these indices – the agreement on contents weighting and format .

n 2. A Site Stress Index (to be used with the site attractivity index) .A site stress index would be derived from several measures of levels of us eintensity pertaining to specific identified priority sites or hot spots .Elements in the index would include :

n measures of spatial intensity of use (persons per sq . metre, per cent of site

andsurrounds built up, density of development)

n measures of temporal intensity of use (per cent of visitors on highest us e

day, seasonality of use )

n measures of potential cultural impact (tourists per local )

n measures of environmental stress (per cent of site degraded, neede dexpenditures on repair to damage from use )

n measures of effects of use (pollution levels on water, air, volume of wast e

production )

Together, these two composite measures could be summary indictors for hot spots -used both to target current and potential hot spots or critical areas and to measure

changes over time in their state and stress levels . As indicated in the initial findingsreport, "Hot spots"or critical areas are to be treated separately from the nationa l

level indicators . It has been suggested that the use of these indicators can focus o n

identifiable tourist destinations as a first cut . Critical areas [hot spots] are defined

as :

n areas of concentration of activity

nareas of known problems/degradatio n

nareas of rapid change

nareas of extreme natural or cultural sensitivity .

At the national level, indices of this sort are less likely to prove useful, principall ybecause of the great variety in size of nations . Nevertheless, an overall perceptua lindex of national attractivity could be developed – based primarily on persons 'perceptions of the desirability as an overall tourist destination of a particula r

country. For smaller to mid-sized nations, this might serve as a reasonable indicato rof potential demand and/or of reaction to perceived quality/risk/satisfaction . Fo rlarger nations, more regionalized uses of such an index, focusing on specifi cdestinations would be more likely to be useful (e .g. Florida, the Costa del Sol ,

12


Tasmania, Bali) . In all cases, composite indices are a single tool which must be use din concert with other information – such as more specific indicators – to suppor tmore knowledgeable decisions at all scales . the development of these composit eindicators is of value, in that they may become useful targeting tools for the attentionof decision-makers . As they are in part derived from the individual indicators, th edevelopment and agreement on the content of these indices may take time butshould remain an element of this initiative. In the deliberations of the Internationa lWorking Group, there was some concern expressed regarding such indices, as the yare necessarily arbitrary, and the weightings are by definition subjective .Nevertheless, such indices, if agreed as standards, can be strong decision-suppor ttools. (e.g. consumer price indices, UNDP development index, standard of-living-indices . )

B. INDIVIDUAL INDICATORS

Two distinct levels of indicators are identified in this paper :

nnational level and

n local (or critical area) indicators .

National level indicators are generally aggregated to the national level . The datasupporting these measures may in some cases be collected at borders an dtherefore be available only at national levels of aggregation . Local indicatorsgenerally pertain specifically to attributes of particular sites and usually will need tobe collected at the site, or with specific reference to it . The candidate list for thes etwo levels follows . There will in some cases be a complementarity between the tw olevels of indicators – with data at the national level representing a form o faggregation of lower level data . Thus the two levels can be done in tandem for lesseffort than each done separately.

n Short List of Candidate Indicators – Nationa lTABLE 1 is a summary of the work by all participants to select/merge/rank th especific indicators which emerged from the Winnipeg workshop as most relevant t odecision-making on sustainable tourism at the national level . The table is a short lis twhich reflects the ranking and advice received from all respondents .

In TABLE 1, the following format is followed :

COLUMN ONE is the description of the indicator and specific sub-sets of the indicato rwhich would elaborate the specific indicator.

COLUMN TWO contains specific comments on the utility of the indicator for nationa llevel policy-making and related national-level uses .

COLUMN THREE identifies potential availability of base data at a national o raggregate level to support the indicator, and whether or not it is available in th eshort-or long term .

COLUMN FOUR contains further comments on the priority, and use of the indicator . I nthe pilot-project process, this column can be further elaborated to act as practica l

13




guidelines for the use of the particular indicator .

n Short List of Candidate Indicators for Local/Hot Spot sTABLE 2 summarizes the indicators identified as most promising for use at the loca llevel to review specific projects and to monitor hot-spots . It describes the form ofthese indicators as applicable to local/site measurement of key attributes ;

COLUMN ONE describes the specific indicators suitable for local use .

COLUMN TWO identifies the specific utility of the indicator to identify change and tosupport policy and operational decision-making .

COLUMN THREE identifies the potential availability of suitable data at a site-specificlevel and the logistics of its production/acquisition .

COLUMN FOUR contains further comments regarding the priority and use of th eindicator .

SUMMAR Y

The indicators initiative is a strategic step by the World Tourism Organization and by itsEnvironment Committee to help governments and industry to make better decision sleading to a more sustainable tourism industry . Used properly, these indicators wil lstrengthen the ability of decision-makers to understand the principal factors which wil linfluence their long-term prosperity . If we are successful in establishing thes emeasures as an internationally agreed set, future international and interregiona lcomparisons, measures of major trends, and understanding of major policy challenge swill be strengthened. As the public, major interest groups and local communitiesdemand increasing accountability and responsibility by tourism sector decision-makers ,it becomes increasingly necessary that we arm ourselves with the best informatio n

possible . Without this information, we will continue to be the surprised victims o fenvironmental economic and regulatory impacts – impacts which do harm to both ou rcorporate interests and to the environment in which we must survive .

14


TABLE 1 : SHORT ,LIST OF CANDIDATE INDICATORS . FOR NATIONAL US E

Indicator

Policy Relevance

Logistics

Comments

A . Area protected (% of nationalterritory)• subclassification re level o f

protectio n• subclassification re permitted uses

Comparative performance indicator .

IUCN index available . Data alread yLinks to Agenda 21/IUCN biodiversity

reported by most governments to U Ngoals

agencies . Work needed o nMeasure of priority to "treasures"

classification and standardization .

Concern : may need to be related t oother indicators re need for protection ,level of enforcement to yield goo dpolicy information .

B . Endangered spaces (area unde rstress )• proxy indicator = endangered

species

Endangered species are key to ultimate

Available through most government simpact on biodiversity, variety .

(CITES, WWF, IUCN )Variable levels of

knowledge/classification

Measures effects of stress on a keytourism resource . Does notnecessarily give adequate value toareas not recognized as protected ,but ecologically or aestheticallyimportant.

C . Cultural protection• % of nation's cultural theme s

protected• number (%) of protected cultura l

sites

Measure of existence of recognition of

Classification of cultural themes is new .cultural values, and action to protect

Data may be initially hard to obtain .them .

Classes such as cultural tourism, rura ltourism used differently by eac hnation .

May need to be adapted to suit smalle ror culturally homogeneous nations a sopposed to larger ones containin gseveral discrete cultural communities .

Measure of level of travel - hence

International is easily obtainable atpotential impact, or potential response

borders for most nations. Domestic i sto environmental/cultural changes

more difficult but collected by man ylarger nations - where it may be moremeaningful .

D . Travel Intensity (number of domesti cand international trips per capita)

Readily available in short term oncomparative basis for most nations .Needs attention to standard definitio nof tourist, trip . (use WTO standard )

E . Use Intensity (severalcomplementary measures) :• number of localities classed as hot

spots due to use levels, stress ordegradatio n

• % UNESCO sites classed a sstressed

• concentration (% focused on specifi cnatural features or types of features )

• % of all tourists visiting top 5sites/defined hot spots

Key high priority measure of current and

Will depend on some standard form ofpotential stress/problems identification of hot spots - beginnin g

with UNESCO sites, and augmented .Much information will be sourced fro mattractions themselves - therefore thi slinks well to hot spot indicators

Links to application at local scale ofstress measurement for identifie dpriority areas and hot spots.

Indicator can be compared to use of

Most nations will collect this fo rresources by locals as well as to other

national level, but many will not brea knations or change over time .

out tourist sector, particularly fordomestic tourism .

Problem to isolate and relate fuel useto get to destination to specificsites/nations .

Use with E, Ito clarify pattern and

Statistics normally collected by mostdestination of stress on system .

nations. Indicator may not be verymeaningful for larger nations -therefore use the comparabledestination/hot spot statistic .

F. Key resource consumption :• wate r• energy

(Express consumption per tourist,per bed, or per night)

• fuel (air)

As air travel is a significant componentof overall energy use by the sector ,attention need be given to an overal l(international?) use index per tourist.(or per airline? )

G . Ratio of tourists to residents :• annually (tourists/resident)• peak period (tourists/resident)

May be key indicator of social stress -and leading indicator of potentia lsocial or environmental problems .

H. Health/Social Impact :

Key indicator of social distress .• % tourists charged with/affected by Different components (diseases o r

reportable crime

crimes) may be better indicators of• % tourists affected by reported specific stresses . (AIDS ,

communicable diseases .

gastrointestinal disease, robbery)• general health indicator from WHO

Data may be unreliable and no tcurrently collected in compatible form- but through WHO and regiona lcounterparts (e .g. PAHO), and throug hInterpol/UNESCO/ UNDP som ecurrently exists

Does this measure differentsocial/hygiene standards, or rea lstresses ?

15


I N D I C A T O R S

O F


T O T H E


Indicator

Policy Relevance

Logistics

Comments

Relates to control of investment and to

Likely available from nationa loverall impact by outsiders .

investment agencies where collected .I. Foreign or non-resident Ownership :

percentage of tourist facilities owne dby foreigners or non-residents .

This may show levels of impact offoreign development dollars, or reflec thost government's policy re suchinvestment.

J . Political stability index : (UNDP)

Key social indicator of risk to product,

Directly available from UNDP sources .

and of risk to tourists. Major directimpact on market . Can be used with Hto give rough indicator of risk totravellers .

While this may be a good risk indicator,many countries with "good" ratingsmay be affected by perception ofconflict elsewhere (e .g. overall tourismdecline due to Mideast conflict) .Politically controversial indicator.

Uses existing data in most cases . Tie sin directly to local measures .

K . Environmental Standards :

Direct measure of environmenta l

• % of homes, and/or hotels with

impact and of effects of

potable water .

cleanup/waste reduction .• % of urban communities/coasta l

communities serviced with sewagetreatment (% of sewage discharge draw into watercourses/seas) .

• % recognized beaches meeting blu eflag or equivalent standard .

Available at national level from a majorityof governments — as input to UNEP .

Beach data available for Europe and fo rmany other nations. Need to stan-dardize means of measure andreporting. Otherwise establish minimu mbaseline for coliform count etc, met xdays per year (or number of days i nseason beach should be closed) .

M . Infrastructure capacity utilization :• sewage and wate r• transportation (roads, airports ,

ports )• energy supply

Measures stress on infrastructura lsystem .

Data likely available for airports, portfacilities, unlikely available for roadstransport except for hot spots .

Indicator most suitable for smallernations or regions with a limite dnumber of entry points . May be diffi-cult to relate to the part of infractruc-ture which relates directly to tourism .

N . Tourism Employment :• ratio of tourism job creation to job s

in other industrie s• ratio of management to menial job s• percentage locals employed in

tourism industry at each level .

Indicator shows economic effects of

Data likely available at national level

tourism in terms of job creation . Also

through national inputs to ILO, UNDP .

shows potential social effects re

May need to specifically seek touris minvolvement of nationals in key job

sector data .sectors .

0 . Environmental Planning:

Indicator of level of government

Readily available — may have to b e

• existence of comprehensive environ-

attention given to protection of key

refined over time to cover specifi c

mental strategy at national level

tourism/ environmental values .

contents and measures of

- component elements : sustainable

effectiveness of implementation .

tourism strategy, protected area sstrategy.

• adoption of national-level codes ofpractice for tourism operators an dtourists .

After the fact evaluations ofeffectiveness of EIA procedures ar erare — existence of process does not

necessarily mean real impact o renforcement .

P . Environmental Review process :• existence of legislated EIA proces s

for all projects .• level of resourcing/application of

process re major tourism project s• measure of effectiveness of review

procedure/enforcement

Key indicator of level of concern for

Existence of process is easy to

future environmental/social impacts .

establish . Development of acceptedmeasures of effectiveness will be amedium-term process, linked t ostandards for EIA application totourism/other projects and t oevidence of follow-through .

Links to environment/economi csustainability.

Q . Foreign Exchange Leakage :percentage of foreign exchange fro minternational tourism which leaves th ecountry. (as opposed to that whic hremains in the form of loca lpurchases, wages, profits etc.)

Measure of net benefit of inbound

Available from most (particularly more-international tourism to host nation .

developed) national governments a spart of foreign exchange/trad estatistics but problems exist withpackage tours and multi-destination o rpass-through traffic .

16

I N D I C A T O R S F O R T H E S u S T A 1 N A B L E M A N A G E M E N T O F T O U R I S M

TABLE 2 : SHORT LIST OF CANDIDATE INDICATORS FOR HOT SPOTS/LOCAL APPLICATIO N

Indicator

Policy Relevance

Logistics

Comments

A. Destination attractivity index

Key overview indicator .(described above) -individual indicator swhich make up this composite areincluded below

Development of standardized

See section on composite/derivedmeasurement process and agreed

indices above .criteria is essential .

B. Site stress index (described above)

Key overview indicator.

Site monitoring required-data unavailable

See section on composite/derive dunless part of site management

indices above .process .

C . Site Protection :• level of site protection (IUCN index)• % of site for visitor use• % of site hardened off (paved)

Shows base condition of site and level of

Site-specific inventory required .

Readily available for officially recognizeddesignated protection .

and managed sites through e .g .UNESCO .

D . Endangered spaces: is site

Site categorization.

Use ordinal scale – base on IUCN sites in

Readily available through WWF/IUCN forconsidered endangered or under stress .

danger list.

listed sites. Need for standardization ofDoes site contain unique ecosystems or

site measures and definitions .rare species?

Baseline measure of levels of use .

Readily collected on site for all controlled

Key definitive variable for hot spots .sites . Unmanaged sites (open beaches ,high use communities (Lourdes ,Niagara, Oberammergau, Montego Bay )may require special data collection .Need for standardization of definition ofvisitor, means of collection .

Useful indicators for destination resorts,

Requires access to municipal

May need special survey or monitorin gmeasuring stressors.

water/energy records, which may not

at hot spots – particularly those i nreadily differentiate between users to

energy or water poor areas .allow tourist sector use to be isolated.

E. Use intensity: number of visitors tosite

• total annual numbers• peak day/month numbers

F . Consumption :• energy consumption per visitor day• water consumption per visitor day

G . Ratio of tourists to residents• annual totals• peak day/month

Related to (E) above . Measure of

Same data source as E .potential cultural impact.

May require surveys .

H . Development density :• site – sq . metres per tourist

(avg/peak)• existence of development densit y

controls or limits

• measure of intensity of impact Will require development of standard Will require on-site survey .• indicator of control or management definition of site . May also need to

differentiate clearly between develope dsites and undeveloped/limited acces ssites .

I. % of site facilities foreign owned

May indicate level of national control o rlevel of foreign impact .

May be protected information – or insome countries subject to freedom ofinformation/privacy limits.

J . Environmental Quality:• air quality – % days exceeding

standard• water quality – potable water on site• % of waste from site serviced by

sewage treatment• days of beach closures/exceed limit• report in last year of waterborne

diseases (e.g . cholera, bilharzia)

Key indicators of existing stress levels on

Available in many nations from existing

Basic element in environmenta lthe key attributes of the environment

municipal/local environmental records .

monitoring and could tie into WMO o rimportant to tourism – cleanliness,

May need agreement on common

UNEP/UNDP measures and initiatives .health, aesthetics .

standards .

17




Indicator

Policy Relevance

Logistics

Comments

K . Capacity utilization of infrastructure :

Indicator is most meaningful for

Directly available from local authorities

Will require on-site survey .

• sewage developed sites, but can also show and site managers in most cases .

• water

emerging stresses on key facilities for

• transportation (air/road) less developed sites .

L. Existence of integrated site/area

Indicator of level of attention being given

Directly available from site

Key indicator of whether or not framework

management strategy with tourism/

to environmental concerns as part of

managers/local authorities . Quality of

is in place to deal with other concerns .

environmental components .

tourism development process .

policy instrument may vary and thi sindicator could set standards an dcategorize type/quality.

M. Existence of comprehensive

With L above — measure of level of

Directly available from site

Central element in overall environmenta l

environmental review process for new

attention being given to tourism impact

managers/local authorities . Quality of

policy/planning — but on-site effects may

development in/affecting site .

on environment .

policy instrument may vary and this

vary.indicator could set standards an dcategorize type/quality .

N. Expenditures:

Indicator of level of impact and of level of

Directly available from site managers for

Will require site to be managed by som e

• overall amount spent to maintain site response by managers . managed sites. May be difficult to body.

• amount spent to mitigate damage obtain for sites not under formal

• both points above as % of estimated

management or access control .

need to maintain site on sustainabl e basis .

0 . Critical Habitats: are any species of

Element of sensitivity index .

Ties into completion of world net o n

rare or endangered plants or animals

endangered species. Link to WWF/IUC N

known to occupy the site or adjacent

and UNEP activity.

areas .

18


ANNEXES AND REFERENCES

ANNEX 1 : THE INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The WTO Indicators initiative draws on work under way in several nations an dinternationally to develop indicators of sustainable development, and of environmenta limpact . Many of these efforts have generated long lists of sector-specific indicators ,measures of biological integrity, and measures of system stability . The approac hproposed taken by the WTO working group begins with an initial framework based o nseveral of the sources (see reference list) identifying those which seem best able to b eadapted to address sustainable tourism concerns . The working group approach ha sfocused on the development of a practical subset of the much longer list of possibl ecomprehensive indicators . This initial list covers a range of possible measures whic htogether provide a comprehensive ability to monitor all elements of the changin ghuman/environment relationship as it relates to the tourism sector . But this list i smuch too long and detailed to be fulfilled by most nations and regions, even ove rseveral decades . The challenge to the working group has been to identify indicatorswhich provide the range of information required, and which are practical for mos tnations and/or regions to provide . Table 1 shows the relationship between :

A) an "ideal" comprehensive list of potential indicator s

B) the focus of the work of the WTO working group, an d

C) the range of suitable information likely to be readily available without a larg eadditional effort .

The following paragraphs summarize the contents of table 1 as they relate to theindicators exercise .

A. A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF INDICATORSGiven unlimited financial resources and time, the ideal would be a comprehensive se tof indicators to cover all factors important to tourism and the environment. Such a setof indicators would respond in all respects to the need to measure the state of th eenvironment, tourism-environment linkages, and the effects of our actions . Acomprehensive set would contain relatively sophisticated measures of, for example ,ecological integrity and long-term economic viability . This long list (column one of tabl e1) shows the complexity of the need and provides context for the choice of a mor elimited practical set of operational indicators .

B. CANDIDATE INDICATORS (OBTAINABLE IN THE MEDIUM TERM )In the medium term, it will be possible to identify a set of practical indicators towar dwhich the tourism sector can reasonably build over the coming decade . A number ofthese indicators already exist in some form . Others may require changes in the dat acollected, the development of international standards, and the alteration of classes an dcategories of currently collected data to allow international comparison . The candidateindicators would cover the most important subjects at a national or regional level tha ttourism decision-makers need to know to build towards a more sustainable form o ftourism development . The development of this set of candidate indicators (column tw oof table 1) forms the focus of work by the International Working Group . This column ha sbeen left vacant in the table ; the results of the work of the International Working Grou p

19


I N D I C A T O R S O F S U S T A I N A B L E T O U R I S M

T O T H E


in addressing these issues appear in the latter section of this paper, and in tables 2and 3 .

C: BASE INDICATOR S(USING EXISTING DATA AND OBTAINABLE IN THE SHORT TERM)In the short term, it will be necessary to make use of what is already collected, o rwhat can be easily adapted from existing information held by most nations . In colum nthree of table 1, a short list has been developed as minimum baseline of informatio ngenerally available from national and international sources . It is aimed at creating a ninternationally agreed base list . Many of the indicators shown in this list are alread ybeing collected by most nations for submission to international agencies . Theseindicators are in many cases already available . Others are easily derived from curren trecords . Nevertheless, some nations may find that not all are currently collected . Thi sthird list constitutes a minimal response — the least needed to allow an understandin gof some key elements of the tourism/environment relationship .

20


TABLE 3 : FRAMEWORK FOR INDICATOR SELECTIO N

Category ofIndicator

Ideal Setof Indicators

Medium TermSet Of Indicators

Short Term List(Existing Data)

The needed indicators identify thoseattributes of the natural and cultura lenvironment which are critical tosupplying the tourism product, an dwhich are most sensitive to the impactsof tourism . (e .g. ground water levels ,species counts, beach stability, slopestability, cultural integrity)

• comprehensive inventory of sitecharacteristic s- biological and physical monitoring o f

key qualitative and quantitativevariable s

- inventory of cultural resources ,designation of precious or critica lenvironments including are aprotected, different levels o fprotection, access .

1 . Components of the Environment(Resource characteristics)

Nationa l

(This column is the focus of attention o fthe WTO Working Committee o nIndicators)

Local/Hot Spot

(The results of the Working Committe eactivity are shown in the body of thisreport)

• area protected (% of national territoryprotected) .

• number of designated protectedsites/areas.

Nationa l

Local/Hot Spot

2. Carrying Capacity of the ResourceBase

Measures of the levels of different type sof tourist use which can be sustainablysupported by different ecosystems.

Measures to identify the limits of carryin gcapacity for representative ecosystemtypes and the sensitivity of certain partsof the natural and cultural environmentto different levels of use .

• existence of a classification syste mwhich reflects ecological or capabilitycriteri a

• amount of national territory classified .

3 . Levels of stres s- ecological (e .g. pollutants )- cultural

National

Local/Hot Spot

Ecologica lComprehensive monitoring at source o f

the levels of pollutant generation by th eindustry, and by other sectors whichinfluence the resource base of th eindustry. Key components includemonitoring of production of solid an dliquid waste, discharge of sewage, andfrom other sectors, oil spills, toxi cwaste discharge, air pollutants, an dvisual pollution, loss of key resources(fauna, flora, beach access, etc .).

Cultura lMonitoring of state of cultural resources ,including measures of cultural chang eat national, local levels, state of localeconomies, levels of maintenance o rdegradation of key cultural resources .

These indicators are measures both of the existence of a factor and o fchanges in it over time. The table which follows illustrates the nature o findicators required and the constituent elements which need to be part ofa more locally focused review process .

• amount/percentage of liquid wast ewhich receives primary treatment.

• volume of solid waste produced pe rtourist (measured at place ofresidence) .

• species classed a sendangered/threatened.

• area/% of nation/region forested O nnatural forest cover) .

Loca l• volume of solid waste production (fo r

enterprise).

21


I N D I C A T O R S O F S U S T A I N A B L E T O U R I S M T O

E N V I R O N M E N T C O M M I T T E E W O R L D T O U R I S M

T H E

q R G A N I Z A T I O N

- Category ofIndicator

Ideal Set

Medium Termof Indicators

Set Of IndicatorsShort Term List(Existing Data)

Use levels by tourism - at national,

Nationa lregional and local scales, includingmode of use, intensity, and frequency .(Tourist days by type of activity, intensity

Local/Hot spotof use), origin/destination data ,transportation use.

Levels of consumption of energy, water,paper products, foodstuffs, (includin gsource of product) .

Measures of market response to specifi cecological, and cultural values an dmonitoring of sensitivity of the market toaltered environmental conditions .

Monitoring of cash flows, levels ofleakage of tourist dollars, levels ofinvestment in local infrastructure ,foreign investment in tourism sector ,environmental protection an denhancement .

5 . Impacts/Residual contaminants

Comprehensive monitoring of levels of

Nationalpollutants in the environment,particularly those which can degrade th etourism product . (identification of

Local/hot spot

contribution of tourism industry to

pollution .)Key measures are of water quality, wate r

availability, volumes of waste ,composition of solid waste .

Measures of response of the natural or

Nationa l

cultural environment to use by the

tourism industry (sometimes cumulativewith other sectoral uses) .

Local/hot spot

Key responses should include ,monitoring of ecosystem degradatio n(species loss, biodiversity, ecosyste mresilience, changes to critical habitats ,specific measures of chemical an dphysical change based on abovevariables) .

Cultural impact measures, includin glinguistic, crime, economic an ddemographic indicators .

Measures of the efficiency of use of key

National

products by the industry . Should includ eenergy, material resources . Indicators ofinput-output ratios, percentage waste,

Local/hot spot

use levels of e .g. energy, paperproducts, water per capita.

4 . Levels of consumptio nLevels of Use

• number of visitors/visitor days .• (derived indicator of ratio of tourists

per native, for nation and for touristregions-based on tourist days).

• amount spent per tourist day (expressas index based on daily average wag eof host nation/ region) .

• tourist receipts/net tourist balance oftrade .

• volume of water consumption pe rcapita.

• total area owned/managed by tourismindustry operators (or percentage ofwaterfront) .

- coliform counts in beaches (number ofdays above standard) - or days ofbeach closure (if standard an dmonitoring in place) .- an air pollutant index based on WM Ostandards which showing how man ydays per year are above acceptabl estandards .

6 . Measures of ecological and cultura lresponse to stress

• list of endangered or impacted sites(hot spots )

• frequency of tourism-related crim e(number of tourists involve din/affected by crimes .

• number/% locals speaking indigenou slanguage, foreign language .

• % of labour force in tourism sector .• % of tourism labour force which i s

local .• % of food bought/produced i n

country/region .

7 . Efficiency of use of materials andenergy

• energy consumption per tourist day .• % of national/regional energy

consumed by tourism industry (fo rmajor players) % of waste streamrecycled .

22


Category ofIndicator

Ideal Set

Medium Termof Indicators

Set Of IndicatorsShort Term List(Existing Data)

Inventory of government or industry

Nationa lactions to address environmenta lconcerns . Includes level of funding ,personnel on issue, identification of

Local/hot spotexistence and implementation ofenvironmental strategies, level of effortaimed at influencing strategies andplans at national, regional levels and b yother sectors .

Monitoring inclusion of sustainabletourism objectives and strategies i nnational/regional/local plannin ginstruments .

Includes inventory of key regulatoryinstruments on pollutants, use levels ,measures of investment levels i ninfrastructure to mitigate or eliminateenvironmental problems.

9 . Measured Response to Management

Based on above indicators, measures of

NationalActions

response of key ecological and cultura lvariables to specific managementinitiatives . Derived indicators to show

Local/hot spotresponse of environment t omanagement inputs .

Measures of the economics ofinvestment in conservation an dprotection of environmental values .

Monitoring of levels of long-term planning

Nationa lfor sustainable tourism . Levels of effort,key inclusions, in planning an dregulatory framework.

Local/hot spot

11. International Participation

Monitoring of levels of participation in

National/Internationa linternational and bilateral efforts tosupport sustainable tourism .

Monitoring of cash flows between nations

Local applicatio nrelative to the tourism industry and toenvironmental protection of key touris mresources .

Participation/signing of key internationa laccords affecting tourism and th eenvironment.

This candidate set of indicators has been the point of departure for discussions aime dat the creation of an agreed set of indicators for use by members of WTO, and thetourism industry, worldwide.

8 . Institutional Response/Management activity

• pollution regulation in place for solidwaste- for liquid waste

• existence of sustainable touris mplan/strategy

• level of expenditure on programsdirected at environmental tourism/protection and conservation of tourismresources .

(these are evaluative indicators derive dfrom the indicators collected above )• change in areas protecte d• change in list of endangered species ,

place s• change in levels of monitored

pollutants

10 . Levels of Future-Oriented Activity(strategies, planning)

• Sustainable tourism plan in plac enationally, for specific regions .

• number of designated UNESCO site s• signatory to : climate change

convention- biodiversity convention- UNESC O

23




QUESTIONS OF SCAL E

A complicating problem in dealing with any indicators of this nature is the variety o fscales at which indicators are used . An indicator which is useful to measure largescale flows of tourists across international borders may be irrelevant in decision sabout specific developments in specific communities . Those most meaningful for smal lisland nations may be less useful when tourists are spread across thousands o f

kilometres . The suggested indicators in the table above are focused on the nationa l

scale . This level is most appropriate for nations, large regions, international bodies, o rbroad scale industry-wide planning . Some are adaptable to local circumstance sbecause they are assembled from more local data (e .g. water quality, waste

production) . Others cannot readily be disaggregated to be useable in more loca l

circumstances. Therefore a two-element approach is necessary, including nationa l

indicators for use at the international/national/regional level and local indicators and

review process to support better local and destination specific planning, involvin gaccess and analysis of appropriate information at the project scale (or for hot spots o f

particular interest including key site-specific indicators) .

Internationally compatible indicators may be the most appropriate tool at the nationa land international level to measure progress over sizeable regions, or to compare larg e

scale trends between areas . For more local planning, and in particular for sit eplanning, it may be more effective to develop a process of environmental assessmen t

and monitoring which can be used to answer questions of tourism/environment links .Local environments and the attributes which are valued by different cultures ar e

varied . Consequently, the possible range of projects and plans is correspondingly wide .It would be unlikely, then, that a set of micro-indicators could be developed whic hwould be suitable in all instances, although key indicators for hot spots may b e

desirable . In related initiatives, aimed at supporting better decisions on tourism an d

the environment, the WTO is involved in projects to support a better planning proces s

for specific developments . A "Guide for Local Planners" is in preparation . This guid ewill aid local planners in asking the pertinent questions, acquiring appropriat einformation, and following appropriate assessment procedures to support sustainabl e

tourism . WTO is also developing guidelines for planning of marine national parks an dprotected areas for tourism, and has commissioned work to examine the concept o f

carrying capacity. These initiatives will buttress the indicators work and aid i ndeveloping stronger planning tools for local application .

24


ANNEX 2 : INITIAL PROPOSAL AND RESOLUTION FROM WTO

Accepted by the WTO Environment Committee, Madrid, April 1992 .

RECOMMENDATION S

1. It is recommended that an International Working Group be established under th esponsorship of the WTO Environment Committee to further explore and prepar erecommendations for appropriate indicators of sustainable tourism and to examine th efeasibility of producing a recommended evaluation process for local planning of touris min an environmentally responsible manner.

2. It is further recommended that a small expert workshop involving representatives ofinterested WTO Environment Committee members and selected international expertstake place within the next six months to carry this initiative forward .

If the above recommendations are accepted, one means of advancing this projec twould be to respond positively to an overture by the International Institute fo rSustainable Development (in Winnipeg, Canada) to host and contribute to sponsorshi pof such a workshop focused on the preparation of a more thoroughly develope dpackage of indicators and procedures. Other opportunities may exist through th eauspices of similar institutes elsewhere in the world, or through appending such aworkshop to the International Geographic Union Conference stream on Recreation i nAugust 1992 in Denver, Colorado, U .S.A. or the World Congress on Adventure Trave land Ecotourism in Whistler B .C., Canada in Sept . 1992 .

25




ANNEX 3: WINNIPEG WORKSHOP REPORT

The direct result of the Winnipeg Workshop was the production of a "long list" o fpossible candidate indicators for further discussion and elaboration . This list appearsas Annex 3 .

WINNIPEG TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMEN T

International Working Group MEETIN G

October 13, 199 2

General Conclusions of the International Working Grou p

The International Working Group began with a detailed analysis of the need an dapplication of indicators in the Tourism sector . Based on this discussion the followin ggeneral conclusions were reached :

n The principal focus of this exercise should be on the development of indicator ssuitable for decision support of national level governments in their efforts t omanage for tourism sustainability.

n To support national-level decision-making, two distinct sets of indicators arerequired :

naggregate/national scale indicators

n site specific indicators (hot spots )

[Note : This recognition of 2 separate scales of resolution disagrees wit hconclusions of such groups as WTTC, whose approach is more site and busines sspecific . This dichotomy therefore represents a new position on the utility o findicators for tourism and the environment developed in the Winnipeg meeting . ]

n The focus of this working group has been on the national-level indicators, althoug hsome attention has been given to indicators which may be appropriate at othe rscales. A candidate list has been developed .

n Work will also be required to develop a procedure for the identification of hot spot sfor more specific attention and application of the more site-specifi cindicators/process .

[Note : Some hot spot indicators can be aggregated for use as national indicators ]

Critical AreasThe definition of hot spots is the following :1. areas of concentration of activity2. areas of known problems/degradatio n3. areas of rapid chang e4. areas of extreme sensitivity .

A hot spot may have any or all of these characteristics .Hot spot indicators will need to be developed as a separate and/o rrelated exercise and will relate well to environmental/social impac tassessment processes now in development .

26

I N D I C A T O R S F O R T H E S U S T A I N A B L E M A N A G E R E N T O F T O U R I S M

n Some measures identified as potential indicators are already generally availabl ethrough other datagathering processes . Others will require attention over time fo rdevelopment, probably in collaboration with other international organizations ,national statistical agencies, and the private sector .

n The workshop recognized the potential for indicators to be misused, particularly i fused alone as targets in isolation from other indicators and measures .

n The workshop recognized the variability of country capability of collecting adequatedata (national/local), but feels that this exercise can act as a stimulus for academi cresearch, a focus for data management, and a catalyst for integrated informatio ninfrastructure development .

Indicators: Scope and Specifications

One common limiting criterion for all indicators that are considered is that they must b edirectly or indirectly related to the phenomenon of tourism . This then requires someconsistency to the definition of tourism . At the 1991 WTO Ottawa Conference on Trave land Tourism Statistics on international tourism the scope of this phenomenon wa sbroadened to include all travel except that relating to immigration and direc tremuneration i .e . paid work. The phenomenon was divided into four major sub -categories along two different dimensions :

n International Travel (i .e . inbound and outbound )

n Domestic Travel (i .e . internal travel both same day and one or more nights )

The Ottawa Conference defined tourism as a generic concept comprising the activitie sof persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for notmore than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes . It i sproposed that for the purposes of this exercise, the Ottawa definitions be used .

The use of this broad concept makes it possible to identify tourism between countrie sas well as within countries . "Tourism" refers to all activities of "visitors" including bot h"tourists" (i .e . overnight visitors) and "same day visitors" (i .e . excursionists) .

A "visitor" – is defined in turn as any persons travelling to a place other than his/he rusual environment for less than twelve months and whose main purpose of visit i sother than the exercise of any activity remunerated from within the place visited .

For the purpose of the development of indicators of the relations between tourism andthe environment .

Visitors should be classified as :

n International Visitors Comprisingn tourists (overnight visitors )n same-day visitor s

n Domestic Visitors comprisin gn tourists (overnight visitors )n same day visitors

27




The current statistical systems from which to draw available data as a basis for th eindicators is most developed for the sub-phenomenon of international tourists .However in many developed countries the phenomena of domestic tourism is th e

dominant form that drives and supports the industry . In Canada, for example, domesti ctourists generate approximately 70 percent of the industries' receipts .

For the purpose of the WTO indicators development project, therefore, the Internationa lWorking Group defined that with reference to tourism the primary scope of focus woul dbe limited to indicators dealing with both domestic and international tourists .

The relevant environmental features, activities and associated stresses relating t o

excursionism (i .e . same day visitors at both the domestic and international level woul d

be excluded from the primary focus of analysis at the national level . In some instanceshowever both forms (tourists and excursionists will need to be included to adequatelycapture the full stress on the environment, particularly when the focus is on hot spots .Both forms will also be required to place those stresses relating directly to tourists i n

their proper context .

28


TABLE 4: LONG LIST OF POTENTIALLY USEFUL INDICATOR S

(This table is a complete list of the possible candidate indicators for use by the touris msector which was generated at the Winnipeg Workshop sessions . For jurisdictions wh omay wish to expand their tourism indicators beyond those being developed as a ninternational standard, this can act as a source . )

A . BASELINE INDICATORS(measures of biophysical and sociocultural conditions )

BIOPHYSICAL INDICATORS:

1. A destination attractivity inde x(i .e ., based on composite of range of amenity resources plus infrastructura lresources)

2. Gross % area protected [made more specific by IUCN index ]

SUB INDICATORS:a. % protected level a, b, etc .b. proportion of entity designated for visitor us ec. % of area "hardened off"

3. Endangered spaces indicator (area considered endangered )a . Number of species endangered [= proxy indicator for environment and tourismbecause endangered species is both a measure of human impact and a potentia lattraction for tourists ]

4. National park receipts as % of total visitor expenditure s[if high indicates importance of visits to parks or charging of high fees ; if low, noparks, inaccessible, not collecting revenues (i .e ., free) . Complex indicator ; maybecome counter productive in terms of protection if e .g . used only to raise GNP ]

Sociocultural Indicators : (This was an area where our expert panel feels that it wa sweak and should seek additional advice )

5. Cultural Wealth/cultural diversity .No specific indicator selected . [Panel had difficulty with definition of cultural wealthof a country: suggests inventory of unique and cultural themes of a society first ,representative cases, second ; panel noted that some cultural treasures have nospecific sites (traditional activities, events, ideas, artistic forms ; some sites aremerely a plaque) . Culture represents the self-definition and creativity of a people .It is the sum of the beliefs and customs, traditions, and ways of expression .] i .e . ,there exists a range of values held by local population and tourists :

a. cultural indicators cultural diversity measures (# ethnic groups in country )b. absorptive capacity (index of size, level of risk to groups )

6. Percent of cultural themes represented in the protection syste m[cultural themes are equivalent of ecosystems, inventory of cultural themes of acountry have physical manifestations . ]

29




7. Existence of an inventory of sites from cultural perspectiv e(inventory and classification of cultural patrimony )

8. Area of distribution of tourism destinations and tourism packages,classed by type of tourism (e.g ecotourism) expressed a sa. an index of concentration o rb. % of national area affected/targeted .

9 . Measure of degree to which tourism is based on local culture specific element s(specialized restaurants, hotels in native styles) .Measure of local restaurants/hotels as % of total . (volume/value )

SOCIAL BASELINE INDICATORS

10. Poverty and class ; index of wealth distribution within country per UND P

11. Travel intensity indices :a. # of domestic trips/ member of pop .b. # of international trips per member of populatio n

B . STRESS INDICATORS(measures degree of current or potential stress on system )

1. Use intensity measures :a. # of localities classed as hot spotsb. % of UNESCO sites considered under stres s

2. Energy consumption per tourist :a. per bed o rb. per tourist day

3. Ratio of tourists to residents (annual/peak)

4. Differential between culture of origin and destinatio n(i .e ., Catholics to Catholic country = low stress) as measure of stress potentia la. % of tourists from different cultureb. ratio of tourists/locals modified by a differential weightin g

5. Crime rates involving tourists :a. number of victims (or % of all )b. number charged (or % of all )

6. Health/social impact :a. number of tourists catching transmittable disease sb. number of locals reporting transmittable disease s

7. Encounters between visitors and residents :a. total number of encountersb. encounters per loca lc. encounters per tourist

30


8. National/local concentration measures/time period (goal shoulder periods) :a. ratio of peak period to lowest ,b. % of total tourism in peak month .

9. International tourism concentration measur ea. tourists/local o rb. tourism nights vs . total pop. nights )

10. Tourism exposure rates : Ratio of international arrivals to total populatio n

11. Measure of cultural integrity preservatio n(perceived, actual, political) [concern = stress between cultural significance an dphysical entity priorities, for eg ., Canada; eg., Indian heritage sites ; also generatesdebate over positive/negative impact of tourism on culture ]a. % of locals speaking native tongu eb. expenditures/day of tourists relative to native s

12. Existence of legislation/management for protection of cultural industrie s[note this is also a management indicator, but in this case may indicate by it sexistence that a need has been perceived ]

13. Intensity of use/ potential for stressa. % of all tourists visiting top 5 (10) attractionsb. % of all tourists targeting defined "hot spot "

14. Segment (%) of all major demand flows interested in outdoor/nature tourism ;

15. Consumption measures (political/cultural) :a. consumptive trips to total trips (i .e ., hunting/fishing vs photography) i .e . ,relationship to total cultural resource syste mb. total tourism angler days to total tourist day sc. total tourism hunting days to total tourist days

16. Amount of private ownership of entities used by tourists (domestic/foreign )

17. Index of industrial concentration(# firms responsible for 80% of business) concentration tends restrict openness ye tfacilitates regulation ]

18. Comparative density of developmen ta. sq. meters of surface areas sequestered by one tourist bed, (i .e ., tourist density,compared to rest of population density)b. % tourism facilities which are low density (restricted to height of palm tree, o rsimilar to local structures)

19. Average visitor sta y(longer stay = lower per capita impact? but example of cruise ship day visitors ma ynot support this ; index requires national boundary and scale relevance ex .Japanese/Can . 6day package demands some measure of distance travelled an drange (return Japanese visitor not follow this pattern )

20. Measure of car miles driven by tourists (or expressed as a % of total road net )

21. Growth in golf courses (% of national territory, or % of arable land )

31




C . IMPACT INDICATORS(measuring effects that have taken place, positive and negative, i .e ., resultant impac tof community on tourists or tourist on community) . Many of these imply a defined

carrying capacity : specific standards which define acceptable levels of use, pollution ,

or change .

1. Incidence of water borne diseases(indicates overall system capacity caveat: difficult to measure due to unreporting )

a. incidence among touristsb. endemic local incidenc ec. ratio of a to b

2. Political instability index (base on UNEP data )(rationale = conflict's relationship to environmental degradation(relocation, social unrest, infrastructure damage, etc . )

3. Numbers (%) meeting "blue flag" beach program or equivalent standar d

a. number of beach closures/closure day s

4. Compliance with environmental regulation sa. air quality (% days exceeding standard in major centre(s )b. water quality (% homes/hotels with safe water)(ordinal quality of major rivers drinkable/swimmable/fishable/boatable )

c. sewage treatment (% dwellings serviced by treatment, or % of hotels/tourism

establishments on sewage treatment )

5. Actual capacity utilization of existing infrastructure(if low, means below stress level )a. sewage and water infrastructur eb. transportation infrastructure (airports, roads )c. foreign direct investment in private infrastructure for touris m

6. Recorded infractions against site preservatio ni .e ., littering, dumping, defacing etc . (may be more meaningful by site )

7. Number of tourist dollars (%) remaining in country (leakage)

8. Number of jobs create da . number of managerial jobs/menial job s

9. Number of enterprises establishe da . local enterprises as % of tota l

10 Number (%) of original language speakers

11. Job creation of tourism as % of creation by other industrie s

a . Ratio of national/cultural component v .s . other parts of tourism industry

12. Taxation indices direct/indirect taxation per tourist vs per residen t

13. GDP = consumption index (therefore potential for pollution, degradation, etc . )

32


D . MANAGEMENT INDICATORS(measures of management action, results )

Activity

1. Existence of integrated national conservation/sustainable development strateg ya. existence of particular components in such a strategy (e .g . sustainable tourismelement, parks strategy, explicit steps to define or manage in terms of carryin gcapacity)

2. Measures of marketing programs(creation of demand, level of awareness of destinations, hot spot attractions ;$ spent in creation of market desire for destination ; management requires front en dcontent analysis of market of advertisements/package tours )a. % of marketing which stresses ecotouris mb. % of marketing which targets hot spots/UNESCO sites/top 5 destinations .

3. Amount of money (% of budget) spent to protect endangered space s

4. Existence of tourism code of ethic sa. adoption of a code of ethics by the industry/local government (informal )b. official adoption at national level (more formal )

5. Existence (level of) tourism/environment training program sa. # of tourism training institutes with environmental componentsb. # of tourism boards with environmental policie s

6. Percent national budget spent on environmental "goods "(note: work at IISD is aimed at supporting this indicator )

7. Percent of budget national/local spent on people employed in educational ,interpretive measures (i .e ., national parks, cultural sites, staff )

8. Membership in regional tourism associations v .s . national associations index o fcooperation, cohesiveness(heterogeneity = characteristic of industry yet strong industry developed associationsare possible and represent good indicators of potential promulgation of a set o findicators and standards throughout the industry, regionally, nationally ,internationally)

such cooperative developments could be examined over tim e

9. Active protective/enhancement policy/process in plac ea. Number of sites so designated, national treasure sb. Ratio of sites identified internationally to those protected nationall y

10. Existence of national environment taxe sa . applied to touris m

11. Existence of effective environmental impact assessment at regional, loca llevels as part of national tourism polic ya. coastal zone, downtown rejuvenatio nb. expenditures of industry on these measures (tends toward management results )

12. Country membership in ICOMOS

33




13. Existence of business plans or programs for environmental issues

a. private sector budgets expended (VRTC resources )

b. analysis of content/areas covered in plans (national and regional levels )

14. Percent national budget spent on cultural events(can be good indicator of government involvement (i .e ., system in place at all, levelsof expenditures, existence of national, internationally recognized standards )

a . measurement of real performance = more problemati c

15. Percent national budget spent on site restoratio n(= potential for over/understatement exists, esp . religious sites )

16. Amount of $ spent by private interests on cultural events/preservatio n

17. Existence of energy management plan within tourism ,

i .e ., plans for renewable energy use

18. Existence of tourism planning standards for cultural element s

19. Existence of Green Tourism programstatus of existing tourism management and marketing plans and marketing wit henvironment element (green label )

20. Institutional structures :a. # of government institutions that have identified concerns of tourism and th eenvironment in their mandates, missions, and operations ( shows penetration o fenvironmental economic planning eg . = U .S. Rural Tourism Development Progra mdraws from a number of federal agencies (agriculture, forests, etc . ; interagencycoordination not possible 10 years ago )b. existence of Ministry of Tourism with explicit environmental element to mandate

c. identification in nonWestern context of existence of institutional structure ssupportive of management effectiveness in area of tourism & environment-separatebodies (from tourism) can have tourism mandat e

21. Existence of accepted plans/processes (at park/regional level )

22. Comprehensive environmental review process applied internationally t otourism development international level (USIA, CIDA, Non-Aligned Group, etc . )

23. Amount/% of budgets from International Organizations, such as World Wildlife

Fund, World Bank, UNDP, into tourism protection/developmen t

24. Public opiniona. Gallup, "green" surveys of how industry is viewed by public as havin genvironmental responses, (formerly nationally measured, now internationally . )b. measure of public demand for greening of industry practic ec. level of appearance of green tourism in marketing (brochures )

34


25. Corporate sensitivity and response(VMC could have role here in developing measures of code of ethics, cooperation ,environmental sensitivity, public awareness )a. existence of corporate code sb. budget for green practicec. % with corporate environmental office

Indicators of Results

26. Control of imagery of destinationsmeasures of effectiveness of diversification of image, message away from hot spot sthrough management of marketing activitie s

27. Tourist perceptions of nation's sensitivity to :a. environmental health ,b. perceptions of danger,c. cleanliness/uncleanliness ,d. personal health and safety

28. Management of hot spots as indicator for systemic need sa. change in number of Hot Spotsb. change in status of Hot Spots re risk index

A process of priorization of these in the light of needs and availability followed theWinnipeg Workshop, and included several rounds of review with the Working group .

35


I N D I C A T O R S

O F


T O T H E


REFERENCE S

Daly H . and J Cobb, 1989 . For the Common Good : Redirecting the Economy towar dCommunity, the Environment and a Sustainable Future . Toronto, Oxford University

Press .

Draper, William H ., 1991 . Human Development Report 1991 . United Nation sDevelopment Program, New York .

Indicators Task Force Environment Canada, 1991 . A Report on Canada's ProgressTowards a National Set of Environmental Indicators . Ottawa, Ontario, Environmen t

Canada .

Manning Edward W., 1992 . "Managing Sustainable Tourism : Indicators for Bette rDecisions," Proceedings, Second World Congress on Adventure Travel an d

Ecotourism . Whistler, B .C. Canada .

Nelson, J .G ., 1991 . Tourism and Sustainable Development With Special Referenc e

to Monitoring . Waterloo Ontario, Heritage Resources Centre .

Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development, 1990 .Indicators For The Integration of Environmental Concerns in Transportation Policies .

OECD, Paris .

Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development, 1990 . OECD Workshop o nIndicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns in Sectoral Policies, OECD ,

Pari s

Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development, 1990 . Environmenta l

Indicators, OECD, Paris .

Pearce, David, and Shirra Freeman, 1991 . Informational Requirements for Polic yDecision makers . Theme Paper One, Environmental Information for the Twenty-firs tCentury, International Forum, Montreal .

Potvin, Joseph R ., 1991 . Synthesized Workshop Proceedings : Indicators ofEcologically Sustainable Development . Ottawa, Ontario .

Ruitenbeek, H . Jack, 1991 . Towards New Fundamentals : Indicators of Ecologicall ySustainable Development . Ottawa, Ontario, Canadian Environmental Advisory Council .

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1991 . QualitativeIndicators and Development Data : Current Concerns and Priorities . Geneva ,Switzerland, UNRISD .

Victor, Peter A ., James J . Kay, and H . Jack Ruitenbeek, 1991 . Economic, Ecological ,

and Decision Theories : Indicators of Ecologically Sustainable Development . Ottawa ,

Ontario, Canadian Environmental Advisory Council .

World Travel & Tourism Council, 1990 . Environmental Impact Assessment and Audi t

Guidelines . Brussels, Belgium .

World Travel and Tourism Council, 1992 (revised 1993) . Statistical Indicators

Needed to Monitor Sustainable Travel and Tourism Development, World Travel an d

Tourism Environment Research Centre, Oxford England .

36

11~111»~'MrW

CMT-Wr0• FTC

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUT E

IISD p

FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPNIEN T

NSDF:VELOP IPEMEN ADU A RLE IIDD

1+1=2' ==2 sCanada

Documents

International Sustainable committee r - · PDF fileOF TOURISM INDICATORS FOR THE CNi:-weft- ... Co-published with the World Tourism Organization ... INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR INDICATORS